Letting people who have marijuana convictions work there serves a dual purpose. It works against passive systematic racial discrimination and it lets convicted people have a real chance at getting a good, stable job in an area they have real-world experience. We already do a shit job at letting convicts re-enter society without having to resort to crime again; recidivism sucks and causes huge problems beyond more black market weed sales.
Generally agree with the comments, but I do wonder how much of having that rule served to keep the federal government at bay
Pretty much none. The federal government under Obama cares about illegal drug trafficking, not the minutiae of legal marijuana dispensaries. Hell, I can actually mentally picture Obama and Biden smiling if they knew former convicts were being gainfully employed at dispensaries.
The 'no felonies' requirement was almost certainly to ease the new law through passage. Prevent arguments that the shops would be run by and profiting criminals.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The Supreme Court has rejected an effort by Nebraska and Oklahoma to have Colorado's pot legalization declared unconstitutional.
The justices are not commenting Monday in dismissing the lawsuit the states filed directly at the Supreme Court against their neighbor.
They argued that Colorado's law allowing recreational marijuana use by adults runs afoul of federal anti-drug laws. The states also said that legalized pot in Colorado is spilling across the borders into Nebraska and Oklahoma, complicating their anti-drug efforts and draining state resources.
The Obama administration had sided with Colorado, despite the administration's opposition to making marijuana use legal.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have heard the states' lawsuit.
The Supreme Court has rejected an effort by Nebraska and Oklahoma to have Colorado's pot legalization declared unconstitutional.
The justices are not commenting Monday in dismissing the lawsuit the states filed directly at the Supreme Court against their neighbor.
They argued that Colorado's law allowing recreational marijuana use by adults runs afoul of federal anti-drug laws. The states also said that legalized pot in Colorado is spilling across the borders into Nebraska and Oklahoma, complicating their anti-drug efforts and draining state resources.
The Obama administration had sided with Colorado, despite the administration's opposition to making marijuana use legal.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have heard the states' lawsuit.
So the health minister of of Canada announced that they will legalize recreational potintroduce legislation to legalize recreational pot by next spring. How likely is this to actually happen?
Doctor: "Your reason for needing a marijuana prescription?"
Patient: "I live in Ohio"
Doctor: "You poor bastard. We'll start you off at a pound a week"
Doctor: "Your reason for needing a marijuana prescription?"
Patient: "I live in Ohio"
Doctor: "You poor bastard. There are only a handful of conditions allowed in the new law and I would be required to prescribe a specific THC/CBD ratio at risk to my medical license. Get out."
Fixed, for what they're actually trying to pull. This is the second attempt by Ohio legislators to take the wind out of legalization efforts in as many years. Once we get a half-measure, it will be impossible to make improvements.
I recently took a trip to Hawaii, and on Maui a lot of the Sugar / Pineapple plantations are getting shut down. I speculated that Coffee Beans would be the thing that would replace them, but am also curious what the chances are that Hawaii would legalize marijuana and be able to have huge crops of legal Maui Wowi for sale to tourists.
Hawaii is a horrible place to grow pot actually. Climate is all wrong for it.
You don't have closets in Hawaii?
Are you suggesting that before they try growing, they convert those sugar/pineapple plantations into closet plantations?
Fake edit: wow this is from February? I fell way behind on this thread.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
So the health minister of of Canada announced that they will legalize recreational potintroduce legislation to legalize recreational pot by next spring. How likely is this to actually happen?
Doctor: "Your reason for needing a marijuana prescription?"
Patient: "I live in Ohio"
Doctor: "You poor bastard. There are only a handful of conditions allowed in the new law and I would be required to prescribe a specific THC/CBD ratio at risk to my medical license. Get out."
Fixed, for what they're actually trying to pull. This is the second attempt by Ohio legislators to take the wind out of legalization efforts in as many years. Once we get a half-measure, it will be impossible to make improvements.
Oh yeah, it's totally what I would have expected a med MJ law written by Republicans would look like.
But I'm pretty sure even if it passes a couple of the legalization ballot issues have legs and are decently likely to pass... as long as they're not as poorly designed as the last one.
Really, wtf Ohio. Why you so stupid? (full disclosure, I'm an Ohio resident)
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
In an apparent move of desperation, the Ohio Legislature has passed HB523 with some proposed changes. Under the current plan, designed to preempt marijuana legalization efforts, the state would legalize medical marijuana with strict stipulations.
-Smoking marijuana would remain illegal.
-Growing marijuana would remain illegal without a license.
-Until Ohio's marijuana infrastructure is in place, patients could obtain marijuana from neighboring states.
-All this would be placed under the purview of the Ohio Pharmacy Board, which is appointed by the (anti-marijuana) governor.
-Doctors could prescribe marijuana for 90 days for specified severe and chronic conditions, and could renew the prescription twice before having to see the patient again.
-The list of medical conditions excludes many that are acceptable in other states and are included in the proposed amendment such as autism, Alzheimer's disease and nausea.
-The bill requires physicians to receive continuing education about marijuana; to specify the type, strength, and delivery method for the marijuana a patient should consume; and to periodically report their recommendations to the state.
Grassroots efforts to legalize marijuana include another swing at a constitutional amendment, with regulations based on legalized states.
TL DR on
0
Options
Fleebhas all of the fleeb juiceRegistered Userregular
""While there were a few small improvements, there were just as many steps backward," Marshall said. "I get the sense these guys are making it up as they go along.""
This is actually something we struggle with at my workplace, and the article brought something to light that I did not know.
Testing dates to the Reagan administration. The 1988 Drug-Free Workplace Act required most employers with federal contracts or grants to test workers. In 1991, Congress responded to a deadly 1987 train crash in which two operators tested positive for marijuana by requiring testing for all “safety sensitive” jobs regulated by the Transportation Department. Those laws became the model for other employers. Some states give businesses a break on workers’ compensation insurance if they are certified as drug-free.
So many companies are federal contractors that the CBO doesn't actually know how many employees that actually entails. But there are $320b or so a year annually in federal contracts, add in all the grants and you are talking a massive number of businesses/employees.
Dont know why they are called drug tests , they are pot tests, a crackhead barely has to stop smoking crack for 12 hours to pass one. If you were near pot in the last 4 months you fucked tho.
Dont know why they are called drug tests , they are pot tests, a crackhead barely has to stop smoking crack for 12 hours to pass one. If you were near pot in the last 4 months you fucked tho.
Bit of an exaggeration here. Habitual coke use shows up for weeks, and one off weed use is normally less than a week. Well... for UA.
But weed does lend itself to being easily detected.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Dont know why they are called drug tests , they are pot tests, a crackhead barely has to stop smoking crack for 12 hours to pass one. If you were near pot in the last 4 months you fucked tho.
Bit of an exaggeration here. Habitual coke use shows up for weeks, and one off weed use is normally less than a week. Well... for UA.
But weed does lend itself to being easily detected.
If you drink plenty of water and do some exercises that leave you sweaty you'll be clear of coke/crack in like a day, even if it is habitual.
Also you need to be blowing alot of coke for it be showing up for weeks.
With all the hubbub surrounding whether or not we will elect an *oompa lumpa, I havent heard if there was any real movement on pot as an issue.
Hillary seems to be of the same stance as Obama, letting states decide. Any ballot measures scheduled for this election cycle?
Phasen on
psn: PhasenWeeple
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I don't even like to call them drug tests. I call em idiot tests. It's so trivially easy to pass a drug test even with tie dye colored pee. Back when I was working jobs that required drug tests, I would keep a bottle of QuickFix synthetic urine around just in case. It's the same stuff these labs use to calibrate their tests so it works every time. The kit's pretty slick too. You microwave your sample for a few seconds to heat it up. It comes with a hand warmer and a rubber band that you wrap around the bottle to keep it at temp. The bottle has a thermometer on the outside so you know it's at the right temp when you deliver your sample. I would stash the whole thing in my sock just in case. Usually the testing office just had me sign a form, walk into their bathroom and deliver the sample in privacy. Legally, they aren't even allowed to watch so i just dump the Quickfix stuff in the container, seal it up and hand it in.
It also seems like the kind of thing that would trivially invalidate the process. He's not telling anyone to do it, merely observing that it only catches people who don't know about the ridiculously easy workaround.
Are you really morality policing someone who is getting around a bullshit drug test?
I don't do that shit because I am a professional, so I don't get drug tested. I didn't smoke mj back when I was in retail, but I've seen enough recognize that the only jobs I ever had that made me piss in a cup were for minimum wage jobs.
It also seems like the kind of thing that would trivially invalidate the process. He's not telling anyone to do it, merely observing that it only catches people who don't know about the ridiculously easy workaround.
Are you really morality policing someone who is getting around a bullshit drug test?
I don't do that shit because I am a professional, so I don't get drug tested. I didn't smoke mj back when I was in retail, but I've seen enough recognize that the only jobs I ever had that made me piss in a cup were for minimum wage jobs.
There's no morality in this system.
I didn't make a moral judgement. Also I get random drug tests because I'm a government contractor. Yes it's silly to do that but that's the world we live in.
It also seems like the kind of thing that would trivially invalidate the process. He's not telling anyone to do it, merely observing that it only catches people who don't know about the ridiculously easy workaround.
Last sentence.
His last sentence flatly and simply talks about a thing that he did, not a thing he wants you to do. The only pronoun is I, there's no instruction or leading question. You're drawing your own conclusion from his personal experience of how easy drug tests are to evade, that but that's on you.
It also seems like the kind of thing that would trivially invalidate the process. He's not telling anyone to do it, merely observing that it only catches people who don't know about the ridiculously easy workaround.
Last sentence.
His last sentence flatly and simply talks about a thing that he did, not a thing he wants you to do. The only pronoun is I, there's no instruction or leading question. You're drawing your own conclusion from his personal experience of how easy drug tests are to evade, that but that's on you.
He's saying that people that get caught are idiots because of this one weird trick (managers hate him). It seems like such a large amount of effort and risk for a vice.
Even with that product in my possession I would fail the test because I get notified 5 minutes before my test and am expected to go straight to the facility. I live 30 minutes from work and 40 minutes from the facility. I guess I could have an ac adapter in my car and a microwave, but what the hell am I doing with my life if my vice has gotten that demanding.
especially when some jobs will actually require people to watch you pee.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
That will be the next hurdle to overcome. Jobs firing people for legal use of Marijuana while not at work. Courts have already ruled in employers favor in dismissal of employees for off the clock use.
psn: PhasenWeeple
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
especially when some jobs will actually require people to watch you pee.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Right, because it was never about safety or job performance, but about discriminating against groups who might be the type to use drugs.
Posts
Pretty much none. The federal government under Obama cares about illegal drug trafficking, not the minutiae of legal marijuana dispensaries. Hell, I can actually mentally picture Obama and Biden smiling if they knew former convicts were being gainfully employed at dispensaries.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
It's one I can get behind, but what you said was:
Which doesn't lead me to think of canceling the bar on employment, but rather that the kid who go away with it should have been punished.
Yes. Racial inequalities in law enforcement is a huge problem in this country. Inconsistent justice is the worst form of justice.
Consistency is my main desire. Though obviously lifting the bar is by far the better outcome.
We'll get the status quo though. For at least another decade or so.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/supreme-court-rejects-states-challenge-colorado-pot-law-37810092
Oh man, Oklahoma is concerned about the Federal government refusing to step in and assert its authority over the states?
Here, I have something just for hypocrites like them:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/canada-plans-marijuana-legalization-spring-2017-minister-n559361
420 amirite doggg
Doctor: "Your reason for needing a marijuana prescription?"
Patient: "I live in Ohio"
Doctor: "You poor bastard. We'll start you off at a pound a week"
Fixed, for what they're actually trying to pull. This is the second attempt by Ohio legislators to take the wind out of legalization efforts in as many years. Once we get a half-measure, it will be impossible to make improvements.
Are you suggesting that before they try growing, they convert those sugar/pineapple plantations into closet plantations?
Fake edit: wow this is from February? I fell way behind on this thread.
If it does, then it's effectively the end of prohibition in the US
Unless Trump wins
Oh yeah, it's totally what I would have expected a med MJ law written by Republicans would look like.
But I'm pretty sure even if it passes a couple of the legalization ballot issues have legs and are decently likely to pass... as long as they're not as poorly designed as the last one.
Really, wtf Ohio. Why you so stupid? (full disclosure, I'm an Ohio resident)
-Smoking marijuana would remain illegal.
-Growing marijuana would remain illegal without a license.
-Until Ohio's marijuana infrastructure is in place, patients could obtain marijuana from neighboring states.
-All this would be placed under the purview of the Ohio Pharmacy Board, which is appointed by the (anti-marijuana) governor.
-Doctors could prescribe marijuana for 90 days for specified severe and chronic conditions, and could renew the prescription twice before having to see the patient again.
-The list of medical conditions excludes many that are acceptable in other states and are included in the proposed amendment such as autism, Alzheimer's disease and nausea.
-The bill requires physicians to receive continuing education about marijuana; to specify the type, strength, and delivery method for the marijuana a patient should consume; and to periodically report their recommendations to the state.
Grassroots efforts to legalize marijuana include another swing at a constitutional amendment, with regulations based on legalized states.
Gee ya think?
This is actually something we struggle with at my workplace, and the article brought something to light that I did not know.
So many companies are federal contractors that the CBO doesn't actually know how many employees that actually entails. But there are $320b or so a year annually in federal contracts, add in all the grants and you are talking a massive number of businesses/employees.
Bit of an exaggeration here. Habitual coke use shows up for weeks, and one off weed use is normally less than a week. Well... for UA.
But weed does lend itself to being easily detected.
If you drink plenty of water and do some exercises that leave you sweaty you'll be clear of coke/crack in like a day, even if it is habitual.
Also you need to be blowing alot of coke for it be showing up for weeks.
Hillary seems to be of the same stance as Obama, letting states decide. Any ballot measures scheduled for this election cycle?
Are you really morality policing someone who is getting around a bullshit drug test?
I don't do that shit because I am a professional, so I don't get drug tested. I didn't smoke mj back when I was in retail, but I've seen enough recognize that the only jobs I ever had that made me piss in a cup were for minimum wage jobs.
There's no morality in this system.
Last sentence.
I didn't make a moral judgement. Also I get random drug tests because I'm a government contractor. Yes it's silly to do that but that's the world we live in.
His last sentence flatly and simply talks about a thing that he did, not a thing he wants you to do. The only pronoun is I, there's no instruction or leading question. You're drawing your own conclusion from his personal experience of how easy drug tests are to evade, that but that's on you.
He's saying that people that get caught are idiots because of this one weird trick (managers hate him). It seems like such a large amount of effort and risk for a vice.
Even with that product in my possession I would fail the test because I get notified 5 minutes before my test and am expected to go straight to the facility. I live 30 minutes from work and 40 minutes from the facility. I guess I could have an ac adapter in my car and a microwave, but what the hell am I doing with my life if my vice has gotten that demanding.
Lots of people don't work at your job. Most have 24 hours.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Right, because it was never about safety or job performance, but about discriminating against groups who might be the type to use drugs.